Don’t Drill, Baby: Interior Department Halts Offshore Drilling Push

The Obama administration called time out Tuesday afternoon on one of the Bush administration’s last moves—opening up parts of the Outer Continental Shelf for more oil and gas drilling.

The decision by Interior Secretary Ken Salazar to further study the country’s offshore energy potential doesn’t mean offshore oil drilling is entirely off the table. But it does spell a steeper road for oil and gas interests hoping to tap into offshore reserves that have long been off-limits, even as it raises the prospect of more renewable-energy development there.

Salazar: “These should not be partisan issues.” (AP)

The Bush decision “was a headlong rush of the worst kind. It was a process rigged to force hurried decisions based on bad information,” secretary Salazar said Tuesday. “It was a process tilted toward the usual energy players while renewable energy companies and the interests of American consumers and taxpayers were overlooked.”

He stressed that the about-face, including a fresh emphasis on clean energy, fits into President Obama’s “comprehensive” energy plan: “The Bush Administration was so intent on opening new areas for oil and gas offshore that it torpedoed offshore renewable energy efforts.”

Oil and gas interests were predictably upset. Barry Russell, chief executive of the Independent Petroleum Association of America said, “We need to act quickly and aggressively to develop domestic energy resources that could provide energy, jobs and needed revenues for states. This unnecessary delay will hold America back, at the precise moment when we need to move forward the most.”

Some environmentalists, like Oceana, were upset Team Obama didn’t go further and renew the moratorium on new offshore oil exploration.

So what’s next for offshore energy? In the next 45 days, the U.S. Geological Survey has to draft a fresh report on all the potential offshore energy resources, both oil and renewable energy, Mr. Salazar said, since much of the U.S. government data is decades old. There will also be a six-month period for public comments, meaning the “drill, baby, drill” debate could last well into summer.

As for Interior’s push into offshore renewable energy, that could be as tricky as placating old-energy interests. The economics of offshore wind power are still less compelling than onshore wind, making it a tiny fraction within a niche energy source. And offshore wind causes even more NIMBY problems than onshore wind—witness the Cape Wind saga in Massachussets.

Comments (5 of 28)

Ask Bryan Leyland of New Zealand how well this wind stuff is working for them. He is one of the world's renown experts on energy production. You won't like the answer.

11:21 am February 12, 2009

Scott Wilson wrote :

Yea! Finally an Interior Secretary using their brain. Offshore wind is a huge untapped resource, close to population centers. And what a great way for most of the Southern states, who are currently against a national Renewable Portfolio Standard, to get their renewable energy.

3:42 am February 12, 2009

David Ahlport wrote :

==We don’t have the infrastructure for electric vehicles nor the battery technology.==
-
According to who?
greyfalcon.net/plugins4
greyfalcon.net/quickcharge3
greyfalcon.net/plugins7
-
Now clearly the we don't have the cars, or the scale of battery production we would want.
-
However that's quite different from what you just said.

1:32 am February 12, 2009

Terry wrote :

Let's be realistic, a 10% ethanol mixture in gasoline, which by the way is now mandated, decreases the fuel economy of a vehicle by at least 11% so the same amount of gasoline still has to be consumed. We don't have the infrastructure for electric vehicles nor the battery technology. Plastics and many other products come from oil. It is unrealistic to ignore our dependence on oil and very unwise to neglect to use natural resources ,i.e. oil, to help ourselves be less dependent on other countries.

2:01 pm February 11, 2009

SallyVCrockett wrote :

I actually think a little open debate on the issue is a good thing. Public comment and a study by the U.S. Geological Survey are in the public interest. Frankly, I've been disappointed by the seeming lack of debate regarding things like reducing CO2 emissions. The administration and Congress seem to be talking more about political expediency lately than they are about what solution is best for the country and the Earth. As Congress moves forward with climate change legislation, I hope that they examine all of the options and allow for similar debate. http://www.climatetaskforce.org

About Environmental Capital

Environmental Capital provides daily news and analysis of the shifting energy and environmental landscape. The Wall Street Journal’s Keith Johnson is the lead writer. Environmental Capital is led by Journal energy reporter Russell Gold, and includes contributions from other writers at the Journal, WSJ.com, and Dow Jones Newswires. Write us at environmentalcapital@wsj.com.